Tag Archives: homosexuality

A 19th century depiction of Galileo before the Holy Office, by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury (Wikicommons)

When the Board of Trustees at Shorter College in Rome, Georgia lost a long legal battle with an increasingly fundamentalist Georgia Baptist Convention, many of us held out hope that the faculty, students, and alumni would be able to fight back against the pernicious influence of fundamentalism. Our vigil is finally over. Shorter (now “Shorter University”) has drawn its last breath as a legitimate institution of higher learning. On October 25, 2011, Shorter’s Board of Trustees adopted a collection of documents which, according to university president Dr. Don Dowless, are to serve as a “continuing affirmation of our Christ-centered mission.”

On the surface, that sounds like a fantastic idea. A university centered on the teachings of Jesus would be an exciting place to study. Imagine a learning environment where students are taught to question everything they had ever learned, and to never settle for pat, easy answers [John 8:1-11]. Think of a school where students are taught to reject the materialism and acquisitiveness of modern society [Luke 3:11] and give all of their possessions to the poor [Matt 19:21]. An education centered on the teachings of Jesus would constantly challenge both conventional wisdom [Luke 6:20-26] and religious traditions [Matt 5:38-39]. It would certainly reject religious fundamentalism, just as Jesus did [Matt 12:1-12; Mark 2:27; 7:19]. Studying in such a place would mean joining into that beloved community of Jesus’ disciples who shared all their possessions with each other [Acts 2:44-47] and who shared constant fellowship in a setting that was free of prejudices of sex, social standing, or ethnicity [Galatians 3:28].

Unfortunately, the documents created by Shorter’s Board address none of these core biblical, Christian concepts. Instead, they talk ambiguously about “truth” and “biblical faith” and a “biblical worldview.” A little more digging reveals what they mean by these vaguely positive terms. The “Statement of Faith,” for instance, asserts that the institution takes the contradictory Babylonian creation mythology in Genesis as a literal, “historical account.” It even claims that there were two historical people named “Adam and Eve, from whom all human beings have come.” For Shorter, then, being a “Christ-centered” university means rejecting the major academic disciplines of History, Geology, and Biology. In addition, it means rejecting the well-established biblical scholarship that helps to preserve the value of these texts without requiring adherents to attain the cognitive dissonance necessary to take them literally.

The document goes on to outline other fundamentalist boundaries on the school’s theology, most of which would only matter to Religion scholars. Where the consequences of this meticulously worded theology become worrisome, though, is in the “Biblical Principles on the Integration of Faith and Learning.” That document states (and underlines) that “University staff will submit an annual plan with the letter of agreement that details how they will integrate the Christian faith into their specific areas of work.” Viewed in light of the preceding document’s definition of what the “Christian faith” is, every professor at Shorter – not just their Religion faculty – is now expected to conform their curriculum to Shorter’s incredibly narrow, and intentionally academically ignorant, characterization of what “Christian” and “biblical” belief entails.

This “Christianity” of Shorter University has little to do with the historic faith of the Church. Instead, it is a reactionary rejection of the past two hundred years of human evolution: progress that has given us ethnic and gender equality; progress that has freed us from ignorance about our past; and, progress that has saved us from superstition when we study the world around us. Since the Enlightenment, scholarship and study have toppled the authority of those who wish to indulge in prejudice and ignorance to advance their social and political agendas.

Consequently, fundamentalist groups like those now in charge at Shorter exist primarily to help those on the losing end of the Enlightenment reclaim the anachronistic superstitions that make their worldview possible. Fundamentalists camouflage their rhetoric in comforting terms like “Christian” and “biblical” in the hope that no one will have the theological or biblical literacy to recognize the hypocrisy and deception inherent in their approach. As a result, the greatest threat to their methods is an educated, literate populace – and so fundamentalists move their culture war to public school systems and, whenever possible, to institutions of higher learning. Shorter’s new policies make this agenda abundantly clear. Academic freedom at Shorter is now subject to an obscure and willfully obdurate understanding of “biblical truth.”

But the tragedy does not end there. The most bizarre and offensive of all these documents is the “Personal Lifestyle Statement” whichall Shorter faculty must now sign. The document speaks of being “Bible believing Christians” and maintaining a “Christ-centered institution,” yet it makes no mention of pacifism, giving to the poor, rejecting religious fundamentalism, or any of the teachings of Jesus enumerated above and in the New Testament. In fact, being a “Christ-centered” professor at Shorter means having only four concerns: 1. Loyalty to Shorter and the Georgia Baptist Convention, 2. Drugs, 3. Sex, 4. Alcohol. Interestingly, the alcohol section is by far the longest and most detailed. Apparently Georgia Baptist fundamentalists are still fighting the Prohibition battles of the last century. That is particularly ironic since the Christ on whom the school claims to be “centered” famously made wine at a wedding [John 2:1-11] and was called a “drunkard” by his critics because, unlike John the Baptist, he drank alcohol [Luke 3:33-34].

Hypocrisy concerning alcohol aside, the statement on sexuality in section 3 is perhaps Shorter’s most tragic. That section equates premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality – actively attacking the trend towards increasing inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians in the larger Christian Church. As most of Christianity, and most of Western society, moves forward in rejecting anti-LGBT bias, Shorter University has chosen to plant its Crusader’s shield on the hill of bigotry and intolerance. As with all organizations that side with prejudice and ignorance, the judgment of history will record Shorter’s shame.

Shorter University has chosen to ally itself with those who want to draw a curtain of medieval shadow over the light of reason, learning and inclusiveness that sustains the work of a modern university. In so doing, they have consigned themselves to the ignorant backwaters of self-perpetuating fundamentalist scholarship, and they will eventually disappear into irrelevance – as happens with all institutions that uproot education and then plant indoctrination in its stead. By its own decision, Shorter University no longer matters in the modern world.

So then why should we care? What happens at Shorter matters for several reasons. First and foremost, the takeover and transformation of Shorter University should remind us all that education is a fragile thing. Many of the world’s evils are shielded by ignorance, and if we do not work actively to protect rigorous, open, free research and study we will lose them to forces eager to destroy them.

Secondly, it matters because we cannot allow people to easily ignore or dismiss what has happened to Shorter under the heading of “Well, that’s just what they believe. They should be allowed to teach what they believe.” Belief, like every other aspect of human experience, must be held accountable for its consequences and conclusions. Hiding ignorance and prejudice behind language of “faith” and “the Bible” cannot be tolerated. Slaveholders and abusive husbands did the same for centuries, and we can never return to a world where religious rhetoric becomes a sacrosanct excuse for oppression and bigotry.

Finally, what has happened at Shorter matters because, if it becomes the norm in Christianity, it foretells the death of the tradition. The Board of Trustees at Shorter College has chosen to define Christianity and biblical fidelity in terms of a small set of narrowly-constructed political issues. Apparently, for them being a Christian means: rejecting Biology, Geology, and History; oppressing LGBT persons; limiting academic freedom to narrow constructions of “truth” based on 3,000-year-old superstitions; and not consuming alcohol. If that is what Christianity becomes, it will be meaningless and dead within a century.

Standing against the forces of fundamentalism at Shorter University and elsewhere is not simply about fighting back against a far-right and reactionary political agenda. It is about preserving the ideals of post-Enlightenment education, holding religious beliefs accountable to the same standards of logic and cognitive health as any idea, and it is about preserving the expansive breadth of Christianity in a way that allows it to be continuously relevant to future generations. Shorter University has made it clear that the school stands directly in opposition to all of these things. The task remains for the rest of us to continue to move the world forward into a place where scholarship and faith instead work together to overcome superstition and injustice.

The Rev. C. Joshua Villines taught a wide range of courses – including Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Christian Theology, Church History, and Critical Thinking – as an adjunct from 2006 to 2008 in the Professional Studies Program at the former Shorter College. He now teaches as an adjunct in the College of Continuing and Professional Studies at Mercer University.

(Treacherous assassins, ingrates before God, and enemies of humanity are those who – under the pretext of guiding future generations – teach them an isolated and absolute system of doctrines, and who preach into their ears, instead of sweet words of love, the barbarous gospel of hate.)

– Jose Martí

A 19th century depiction of Galileo before the Holy Office, by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury (Wikicommons)

Shorter College in Rome, Georgia is no more. On the most basic, linguistic level, this is obviously true. On June 1, 2010, the institution founded in Rome Georgia in 1873 as “Shorter College” became “Shorter University.” But the soul of a college is not in its name, and the poison that eventually killed Shorter College was first injected into the school’s veins in 2005, when the college’s Board of Trustees lost a long legal battle with an increasingly fundamentalist Georgia Baptist Convention. Many of us held out hope that the faculty, students, and alumni would be able to fight back against the pernicious influence of fundamentalism. Our vigil is finally over. On October 21, 2011 Shorter drew its last breath as a legitimate institution of higher learning.

On the surface, that sounds like a fantastic idea. A university centered on the teachings of Jesus would be an exciting place to study. Imagine a learning environment where students are taught to question everything they had ever learned, and to never settle for pat, easy answers [John 8:1-11]. Imagine a school where students are taught to reject the materialism and acquisitiveness of modern society [Luke 3:11] and give all of their possessions to the poor [Matt 19:21]. An education centered on the teachings of Jesus would constantly challenge both conventional wisdom [Luke 6:20-26] and religious traditions [Matt 5:38-39]. It would certainly reject religious fundamentalism, just as Jesus did [Matt 12:1-12; Mark 2:27; 7:19]. Studying in such a place would mean joining into that beloved community of Jesus’ disciples who shared all their possessions with each other [Acts 2:44-47] and who shared constant fellowship in a setting that was free of prejudices of sex, social standing, or ethnicity [Galatians 3:28].

Unfortunately, the documents created by Shorter’s Board address none of these core, biblical Christian concepts. Instead, they talk ambiguously about “truth” and “biblical faith” and a “biblical worldview.” A little more digging reveals what they mean by these vaguely positive terms. The “Statement of Faith,” for instance, asserts that the institution takes the contradictory Babylonian creation mythology in Genesis as a literal, “historical account.” It even claims that there were two historical people named “Adam and Eve, from whom all human beings have come.” For Shorter, then, being a “Christ-centered” university means rejecting the major academic disciplines of History, Geology, and Biology. In addition, it means rejecting the well-established biblical scholarship that helps to preserve the value of these texts without requiring adherents to attain the cognitive dissonance necessary to take them literally.

The document goes on to make affirmations of traditional Trinitarian theology, evangelical doctrines of soteriology, and the meaningless modern doctrine of “biblical inerrancy.” Outside the Religion department, these other claims are not necessarily as inimical to academic rigor as the claims of historicity in Genesis, but they are noteworthy in their narrowness and unambiguous Christian triumphalism. It is perhaps not accidental that the shield on the new Shorter University logo looks like it fell off the arm of a Crusader who recently returned from slaughtering Jews, Muslims, and other “heathen” in the Holy Land.

Where the consequences of this meticulously worded theology become worrisome, though, is in the “Biblical Principles on the Integration of Faith and Learning.” That document states (and underlines) that “University staff will submit an annual plan with the letter of agreement that details how they will integrate the Christian faith into their specific areas of work.” Viewed in light of the preceding document’s definition of what the “Christian faith” is, every professor at Shorter – not just their Religion faculty – is now expected to conform their curriculum to Shorter’s incredibly narrow, and intentionally academically ignorant, characterization of what “Christian” and “biblical” belief entails.

The “Christianity” of Shorter University and its parent organization the Georgia Baptist Convention has little to do with the historic faith of the Christian Church. Instead, it is a reactionary rejection of the past two hundred years of human evolution: progress that has given us ethnic and gender equality; progress that has freed us from ignorance about our past; and, progress that has saved us from superstition when we study the world around us. Since the Enlightenment, scholarship and study have toppled the authority of those who wish to indulge in prejudice and ignorance to advance their social and political agendas.

Consequently, fundamentalist groups like the Georgia Baptist Convention exist primarily to help those on the losing end of the Enlightenment reclaim the anachronistic superstitions that make their worldview possible. Fundamentalists camouflage their rhetoric in comforting terms like “Christian” and “biblical” in the hope that no one will have the theological or biblical literacy to recognize the hypocrisy and deception inherent in their approach. As a result, the greatest threat to their methods is an educated, literate populace – and so fundamentalists move their culture war to public school systems and, whenever possible, to institutions of higher learning.

Shorter’s new policies make this agenda abundantly clear. Academic freedom at Shorter is now subject to an obscure and willfully obdurate understanding of “biblical truth.” As a result, a Shorter University diploma is now meaningless. Many of my friends who have taught for Shorter or who graduated from there are now putting asterisks on their resumes even as we speak.

But the tragedy of what fundamentalist politics has done to Shorter does not end there. The most bizarre and offensive of all these documents is the “Personal Lifestyle Statement” which all Shorter faculty must now sign. The document again speaks of being “Bible believing Christians” and maintaining a “Christ-centered institution,” yet it makes no mention of pacifism, giving to the poor, rejecting religious fundamentalism, or any of the teachings of Jesus enumerated above and in the New Testament. In fact, being a “Christ-centered” professor at Shorter means having only four concerns: 1. Loyalty to Shorter and the Georgia Baptist Convention, 2. Drugs, 3. Sex, 4. Alcohol. Interestingly, the alchohol section is by far the longest and most detailed. Apparently Georgia Baptist fundamentalists are still fighting the Prohibition battles of the last century. That is particularly ironic since the Christ on whom the school claims to be centered famously made wine at a wedding after everyone was drunk [John 2:1-11] and was called a “drunkard” by his critics because, unlike John the Baptist, he drank alcohol [Luke 3:33-34].

Hypocrisy concerning alcohol aside, the statement on sexuality in section 3 is perhaps the most offensive of the bunch. That section equates premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality – actively attacking the trend towards increasing inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians in the larger Christian Church. As most of Christianity, and most of Western society, moves forward in rejecting anti-LGBT bias, Shorter University has chosen to plant its Crusader’s shield on the hill of bigotry and intolerance. As with all organizations that side with prejudice and ignorance, the judgment of history will record Shorter’s shame.

Shorter University has chosen to ally itself with those who want to draw a curtain of medieval shadow over the light of reason, learning and inclusiveness that sustains the work of a modern university. In so doing, they have consigned themselves to the ignorant backwaters of self-perpetuating fundamentalist scholarship, and they will eventually disappear into irrelevance – as happens with all institutions that uproot education and then plant indoctrination in its stead. By its own decision, Shorter University no longer matters in the modern world.

So then why should we care? What happens at Shorter matters for several reasons. First and foremost, the takeover and transformation of Shorter University should remind us all that education is a fragile thing. Many of the world’s evils are shielded by ignorance, and if we do not work actively to protect rigorous, open, free research and study we will lose them to forces eager to destroy them.

Secondly, it matters because we cannot allow people to easily ignore or dismiss what has happened to Shorter under the heading of “Well, that’s just what they believe. They should be allowed to teach what they believe.” Belief, like every other aspect of human experience, must be held accountable for its consequences and conclusions. Hiding ignorance and prejudice behind language of “faith” and “the Bible” cannot be tolerated. Slaveholders and abusive husbands did the same for centuries, and we can never return to a world where religious rhetoric becomes a sacrosanct excuse for oppression and bigotry.

Finally, what has happened at Shorter matters because, if it becomes the norm in Christianity, it foretells the death of the tradition. The Board of Trustees at Shorter College has chosen to define Christianity and biblical fidelity in terms of a small set of narrowly-constructed political issues. Apparently, for them being a Christian means: rejecting Biology, Geology, and History; oppressing LGBT persons; limiting academic freedom to narrow constructions of “truth” based on 3,000-year-old superstitions; and not consuming alcohol. If that is what Christianity becomes, it will be meaningless and dead within a century.

Standing against the forces of fundamentalism at Shorter University and elsewhere is not simply about fighting back against a far-right and reactionary political agenda. It is about preserving the ideals of post-Enlightenment education, holding religious beliefs accountable to the same standards of logic and cognitive health as any idea, and it is about preserving the expansive breadth of Christianity in a way that allows it to be continuously relevant to future generations. Shorter University has made it clear that the school stands directly in opposition to all of these things. The task remains for the rest of us to continue to move the world forward into a place where scholarship and faith instead work together to overcome superstition and injustice.

The Rev. C. Joshua Villines taught a wide range of courses – including Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Christian Theology, Church History, and Critical Thinking – as an adjunct from 2006 to 2008 in the Professional Studies Program at the former Shorter College. He now teaches as an adjunct in the College of Continuing and Professional Studies at Mercer University.

This is my standard response when someone asks me how I can, as a Christian pastor, affirm homosexuality.

The debate over homosexuality is really rooted in the debate over feminism (in its classic sense). Historically, Western Europeans viewed people as existing in two categories: male and female – with social, political, and religious roles determined by which category a person fell into. In the past century, most of us have come to recognize that we’re all just people, some of whom are male and some of whom are female, but that the male/female distinction does not allow us to make universal generalizations about people other than in regards to their role in reproduction.

This shift has allowed for another change in perspective. Previously, it was assumed that everyone was meant to be heterosexual, since all the members of one category were expected to reproduce with the members of the other category; althought not all at once since that gets messy. Consequently, any same-sex, sexual activity was viewed as aberrant from the norm. With a more nuanced understanding of sex and gender, however, came a more nuanced understanding of sexuality. Homosexuality has come to be understood as one of a couple of possible sexual orientations rather than as an activity that violates the only possible sexual orientation. Speaking in terms of Christian ethics and sin, this shift is important because discussions of orientation and identity run much deeper than issues of which behaviors are acceptable. (In addition, it is worth noting that, in my opinion, much of the hostility you now see directed at gay rights is redirected anger over the full inclusion of women in our society and our churches – another discussion for another time.)

OK, so the next question is: Is homosexuality an unhealthy sexual orientation born of the brokenness of the world, or does it have equal standing with heterosexuality. That is to say, is homosexuality, like heterosexuality, neither bad nor good? Are there healthy, God-honoring homosexual relationships just as there are healthy, God-honoring heterosexual ones? Here are three approaches commonly used by people who say “Yes, homosexuality is an equally valid sexual orientation for Christians.”

1. One approach is to say that Christianity is ultimately about an understanding of the nature of God, the cosmos, humanity, and eternity – not about specific behaviors. A Christian is a person who pursues a relationship with a loving God through the death of God’s only son, Jesus in the merciful hope of the resurrection. That relationship is intended to heal the sinful brokenness of humanity, but sin itself isn’t about specific behaviors (otherwise, to “save” ourselves, we would simply need to correct all of our bad behaviors). Sin is about a fundamental brokenness in ourselves and in our relationships, and only the self-sacrificing love of our merciful God can restore what is broken within and among us. Those who follow this approach typically do not look to the Scriptures for guidance on the acceptability of specific behaviors.

2. Another approach comes from biblical scholars who argue that the small number of texts that deal with homosexual behavior are not addressing the issue of committed, consensual, adult same-sex relationships. In other words, the biblical authors wrote in and for a cultural paradigm that could not conceive of homosexuality as an orientation, only as an aberrant behavior. Consequently, they lump it in with a lot of other behaviors which they considered obviously unhealthy or anti-social. In a different context and paradigm, however, it is now possible to have healthy, loving, monogamous, same-sex relationships, so the applicable biblical principles are not the ones criticizing homosexual behaviors but rather the ones that describe how to have healthy, mutually supportive marriages.

3. A third approach builds on the two above. Some Christians note that there will always be some ambiguity about what is and is not sinful, even as they also recognize that this does not make discussions of sin and ethics irrelevant. While Christians should work hard to lead sinless lives, the heart of Christianity remains the development of a mature relationship with a merciful God who (hopefully) understands that we sometimes have to make choices on issues about which we do not have full clarity. (This is, essentially, a more conservative restatement of position 1.) These folks also recognize that there is considerable ambiguity in the biblical texts about homosexuality (see position 2). With both of these points in mind, and faced with an ambiguous ethical situation, they choose the more charitable perspective.

In other words, if the applicability of these biblical texts to the current situation is unclear, and if ultimately relationship with God through Jesus is more important than precision on exactly what is and is not a sin, then – faced with no clear answer either way – should we chose to separate people who love each other and want to create healthy families together, or should we instead nurture their love and their families in our churches and in our communities? Is it more Christian to nurture commitment, faithfulness, and love or to block it?